Simple thoughts.

Crime

April 21, 2017

Von Goethe, of course, was not talking about capital punishment, but the way some talk, he might have been.

Before discussing the current fascination with lethal injections, we need to find our justification for killing criminals. Does society have the right to take the life of one of its members who violates the most sacred rules of society? History has settled that issue. That’s not the point.In this rational age, we must ask what purpose is served by executions. Primarily is the psychological need for retribution following a heinous act. However, after years of appeals, the outrage surrounding the crime wears off. And, killing a man does not teach him anything. There is no regret or anguish after death.

The economic argument doesn't work. Studies have shown the appeals process is more expensive than life imprisonment.

Wrongful convictions do occur, and executions cannot be overturned.

The murder rate typically spikes in the weeks following a highly publicized execution which disproves a deterrent effect. In fact, criminals have expressed more fear of a shopkeeper with a gun or their own criminal colleagues than of the legal system which seems abstract and remote.

There is only one good reason for capital punishment. It absolutely prevents recidivism. Contrary to what we see in the movies, the dead do not kill again. Instead of focusing on the heinousness of the crime, lethal punishment should be based on the likelihood of the convict to kill again, even within the confines of a prison.

That brings us to the method of execution. The ancient and barbaric practices of drawing and quartering, crucifixion, burning at the stake, and so forth are no longer acceptable. Hanging, shooting, and electrocution have been unreliable and occasionally caused an unconstitutional amount of suffering. The gas chamber always had a Rube Goldberg aspect, what with remotely dropping cyanide pellets into a pan of water under a chair, etc. But is a system of three drugs injected one after the other any better?

Have you ever wondered why there is a shortage of drugs for capital punishment, but an ample supply for assisted suicide? Why does the fatal drug in the execution soup require an anesthetic, but the drugs used in assisted suicide do not?

When I had a job seeking to prevent death and injury due to hazardous materials, I studied “enclosed spaces.” The term does not refer to closets and elevators. It is used to identify places without suffficient breathable air. Grain silos, for instance, in which fungus or bacteria on the grain have consumed the available oxygen. Or, the room where a ship’s anchor chain is stored and rust has consumed the oxygen. In places like these, a person might enter without smelling anything dangerous or feeling ill, and then fall down dead. Someone going into the same space to rescue the first person would also die. Such scenarios have actually occurred several times and often involved not two, but a number of deaths as one after another would-be rescuer succumbed.

I submit that an enclosed space execution would not only be humane without requiring obscure chemicals, but would serve as a cautionary public service warning.

Another possibility. This morning, I saw a report of the hundreds of communities in the U.S. with unsafe drinking water—water contaminated with high levels of lead and other substances. We could take advantage of the years spent on death penalty appeals by requiring the condemned to drink tap water. Then, by the time the last appeal is denied, a formal execution might not be necessary at all.

January 22, 2016

Hillary Clinton has been accused of using her private email server when she was secretary of state instead of the official one. In all the back-and-forth I haven’t heard any of the commenters use the simple acronym: RHIP.

It was commonly used when I was in the Army and in government service. For those for whom it is not familiar, I’ll explain. Rank Has Its Privileges. On occasion during my 30 years with the government, I would be instructed to do something that could have got me fired or prosecuted had I come up with the idea myself. However, if the person in charge wants it done, it’s done. And, I was not working directly for a cabinet secretary.

If the Secretary of State says a document is classified, it is. If she says it is not, who has the rank to contradict her? Only the president. Dogs do not run the kennel.

If Ms Clinton were to use the RHIP defense, she would sound elitist and arrogant, so she won’t. She also will not go to jail, because any case will hinge on whether the material on her server was classified. She says it was not, so it wasn’t.

Suppose the Secretary of State were negotiating with a foreign leader and decided to use some information about that leader, or the leader of another country to gain favor or leverage, from whom do you suppose she asks permission to use the information? Possibly the president if the breach were that important. If the issue did not rise to the level of White House concern, the secretary would only consult herself. Discretion over these matters is part of the job description.

Personally, I think the private server was a bad idea. However, Ms Clinton saw her husband betrayed and nearly destroyed by a trusted intern, so I think she had reason to regard those around her with healthy suspicion and to believe sensitive communication was better kept to herself.

June 03, 2014

The shooting spree in Santa Barbara has caused a lot of comment with people blaming guns, Hollywood, and the state of mental health care. I’m not going to argue with any of those, but I’d like to nominate the internet as a prime motivator for this generation of assailants.

There have always been young men unable win the attentions of young women, but their self-image as total losers has never been so obvious as it is today. Jim Morrison got it right in his song for the Doors. In “People Are Strange” Morrison wrote the line, “Women seem wicked when you’re unwanted.” Picture yourself rejected and then subjected to pop-up ads like the ones below.

Pornography has always been the refuge for the unwanted, but the women who participated were from a sub-group of models and performers (acting ability not being a requirement). Non-participating women may have been suspect as per the Doors’ song, but they were generally at a distance.

Today, women and girls of all ages and descriptions are displaying their wares on line, apparently making themselves sexually available to everyone—except the lonely, emotionally disturbed guy who’s been rejected. Again.

And, then there's the cottage industry of chat sites where seemingly any woman with a computer can make a buck by sitting around in her underwear while male correspondents ask her to take it off. Presumably there is a pay-for-peeking arrangement that follows.

If you have any doubt about the ubiquity of provocative images, try a web search with “porn” and any adjective in front of it. I tried “plaid porn” and got plaidskirtgirls.com among others. “Frozen porn” got pages of results. It’s dispiriting.

Thank God, I'm married. And old.

What is equally disturbing are the demeaning and ugly words used on these sites to describe perfectly delightful ladies who happen to have misplaced most of their clothing. Even respectable, appropriately dressed, professional singers, models, actresses, politicians and athletes are captioned with the most disgusting language. Fame is apparently proof of promiscuity.

How can men expect to win any woman’s favor when they think of the opposite sex in these terms? And, of course, the bad attitudes of these few jerks tar the rest of my sex. I'd like to see more male outrage.

Conversely, one might ask how women can expect to be respected when so many of their number willingly participate in these displays. Where’s the female outrage against them? Probably, the motivation for sexual posing is similar to the way a woman will dress provocatively to win admiration from the people she favors, but is offended when she attracts the attention of those she doesn’t.

We’re a complicated species.

Meanwhile, sexual frustration and cyber-stimulation are not excuses for violence. Gasoline is not an excuse for a fire, but it’s a hell of an accelerant when it's contacted by an open flame.

March 04, 2014

“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

I don’t know if John F. Kennedy really meant those words or thought through the consequences, but today, they are clearly obsolete.

Vietnam changed everything. Americans decided that they did not want any more drawn out wars without specific goals. The rest of the world learned that they could defy the United States, and if they could endure long enough, the U.S. would tire and go home. Today, after Iraq and Afghanistan, the world sees that we no longer have the stomach for war, so villains can run amok without fear of consequences.

President Obama has decided we will not commit troops over Ukraine, and this is a European matter. Russia, however, supplies 30% of Europe’s gas—up from 25% in 2012. Europe will not move against Russia without U.S. in the lead. Therefore, Putin can invade with impunity.

If he succeeds in Crimea, he can take the rest of Ukraine under the same pretext, and then the rest of the former Soviet Union—piece-by-piece. What about those states who have joined NATO: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania?

The United States signed a treaty with Ukraine promising protection if they surrendered their nuclear weapons. Now, they need our protection and we’re saying it’s a European problem. Nobody is prepared to stand up to Russia the way Kennedy did. And what does a promise from the United States mean anymore?

So what? They all talk funny anyway. Let Russia have them.

Except, that China is paying attention. China has already expanded its navy and claimed a wider territory in the ocean surrounding its Asian neighbors. Chinese ships have fired water cannon at Philippine fishing boats. It’s just an opening shot.

And, Taiwan is still on China’s to-do list. We are dependent on Chinese manufacturing and rare earth metals. Are we willing to give up our smart phones, computers and electric vehicles for the sake of Taiwan?

Every president since George H.W. Bush has cut military spending. Still, our military budget far exceeds that of any other nation, but if we’re not prepared to exercise our clout, then it really is a waste.

It’s worth remembering that four days after the Soviets cut off Allied access to Berlin in June, 1948, the U.S. launched an airlift to supply the city. U.K. and Australia were already airlifting supplies to the British sector. FOUR DAYS—at a time when U.S. resources were sparse—four days is all it took to launch a response. And, we weren’t even sure it would work. [see “Berlin Blockade” on Wikipedia]

The bullies of the world love it that we want international consensus before we act. That’s why Russian troops still occupy a chunk of Georgia.

Nobody—including Vladimir Putin—wants war, but as Henry Kissinger said, “In crises, the most daring course is often the safest.” We need a little daring.

March 01, 2014

Events in Ukraine have been moving faster than I can write, and I’ve been trying to think of something that won’t be obsolete by the time I post it.

There’s a little book called “Russian Proverbs” by Chris Skillen, illustrated by Vladimir Lubarov, published by Appletree Press that has several timeless comments relevant to the current situation.

First, is this universal observation: “A fish begins to stink at the head.” This has been Ukraine’s problem ever since independence: a succession of stinky heads. Set adrift without rules, the country was quickly taken over by crooks, and corruption reigns at all levels. Of course Russia has similar issues, but Putin is like the old-style mafia godfather who sprinkled enough crumbs among the populace that they overlooked his excesses.

What is truly amazing when browsing the photographs and YouTube videos of Viktor Yanukovych’s opulent estate (one of several homes he owned) is that he was only president for four years (February 2010 until last week). It is impossible to get Ukrainian contractors to do anything within a given timeframe. Did he import foreign workers? As Mel Brooks once noted, “It’s good to be king.”

While many are staggered by the incredible array of stuff he left behind when he abandoned the premises, I see an old principle at work. I used to teach integrity by picking out a class participant and handing him an envelope. “This is a bribe for $50,000. You may accept it, or I my colleague will shoot you. Now, what will you do with the money?” Typically, my victim would mention personal purchases: car, house, clothes for himself and family. Then, I would say, “A month has gone by, and here is another $50,000. What do you do with it?” As I piled envelope on envelope, my victim quickly ran out of purchases and opened businesses. Then, I would suggest that he would also take over rival businesses and begin buying off government officials. Soon, he would want to run the government. Now, he was making much more than what was in the envelopes, and there was no end to the flood. Like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice “what to do with the money” became an insurmountable problem. And, that’s not to mention the threat from those who want to take it away.

Putin is more intelligent than Yanukovych and has handled that issue with more aplomb. Yanukovych is a small-time crook who doesn’t know how to part with money to buy support. So, he spends like it's the end of the world, plants a full-sized galleon in his back yard and converts it to a private restaurant where he serves vodka with his picture on the label.

As the Russian say, “Allow a pig to sit at your table, and it will put its feet on it.”

Throwing the bum out is hardly a solution. More than a quarter of the food consumed in Russia is grown in Ukraine. Part of Putin’s deal with his subjects is to keep food prices low. He does not want Ukrainian producers selling to the highest bidder.

The relevant proverb: “One with a plow, seven with a spoon.” And, majority rules.

Russian FSB (the modern successor to Soviet-era KGB) have their fingerprints all over this crisis. The black-clad snipers in Independence Square who murdered 100 unarmed protesters and sent hundreds more to the hospital probably came from Russia. If Yanukovych had had the support of the police or military he wouldn’t have fled. It’s been widely reported that the masked killers were hired mercenaries. He didn’t find them on Craig’s List.

And, those pro-Russian crowds who clashed with Ukrainian nationalists were no-doubt goaded on by FSB agitators. They're old hands at that game. Ukrainian and Russian news outlets are already talking about how many draconian demands will accompany IMF assistance even though the IMF has yet to make an offer. FSB is also expert at propaganda. The specter of becoming a nation of homeless, unable to afford food, freezing in the snow terrifies Ukrainians.

Putin knows he can move faster than the West can react, so he can do whatever he wants with impunity. Later, after taking a mile, he'll back off an inch and resume normal relations with the much relieved West.

Meanwhile, Ukraine has been through worse under the Tsars, Stalin and Hitler. They can take bitter comfort in their resilience and the proverb, “If the bones remain, the flesh will come again.”

February 16, 2014

The verdict is in for Michael Dunn, the white Florida software engineer who fired 10 shots into an SUV carrying four black teenagers after arguing with them about the volume of their rap music. One of the young men, Jordan Davis, died. Dunn claims someone in the car threatened him with what he took for a rifle or shotgun. None was found at the scene, and the jury found Dunn guilty on four of five counts.

I don’t know the truth of what happened in that incident, but it brought to mind an experience of my own.

I was walking to work along 8th Avenue in Manhattan, near Penn Station. Approaching me on the wide sidewalk were two black teenagers. They seemed to be arguing. They pushed each other. Then, one of them gave the other a hard shove and ran ahead, toward me. The other reached into his pocket and pulled out a weapon. He very quickly assumed a shooter’s stance with a two handed grip, pointing the gun right at me. As a former MP, I knew something about pistols, and if I’d had one, it would have been in my hand. There were no cars at the curb to duck behind or doorways to hide in, and his intentions seemed clear. Unarmed, I kept walking, hoping to appear unthreatening and that his friend was the intended target. As I drew closer, I saw that there was no gun. He was holding a comb.

I think the two teens had decided to prank a white man. If I’d been armed, however, one of them might have been killed and I would be on trial for shooting a kid with a comb.

The moral is not that it was good I was unarmed, despite the outcome. If the kid had really had a gun, then I might be dead and he would be in prison. The moral is that dumb stunts with strangers can have fatal consequences.

I think the teenagers in the Florida incident did something that Dunn interpreted as threatening. I don’t believe he fired simply because their music was too loud or because they argued with him. On the other hand, shooting into a car with darkened windows when you can’t see who you’re shooting at is a really bad idea, criminally bad. The jury probably got it right.

January 30, 2014

I really hate coming to the defense of someone I don’t care for, but more than a hundred thousand people have petitioned the White House to deport Justin Bieber, and that’s not right.

A few years ago, I listened to half a minute of a Justin Bieber song. I didn’t like the song or his voice, but a lot of entertainers have gotten rich doing things I don’t like. I’ve come to terms with that. His behavior seems bizarre, and some find it annoying. Let me be clear on this point: the private lives of people I don’t know personally cannot possibly annoy me. Politician, actor or singer, I can always change the channel, turn the page, or get on with my own life. The person who can’t do that is the one with the problem.

Like so many before him, Bieber is a kid who became rich overnight and knows that he can lose it just as quickly. Learning how to deal with fame, fortune, and the attendant parasites while figuring out what it means to be an adult totally dependent on the short attention span of the public has got to be a head trip. Add to that a wimpy physique and a girl’s voice, and the kid has my sympathy.

Celebrities should not be treated any better than the rest of us, but they shouldn’t be treated any worse either. Let the law take its course without prejudice. We’ll all be better for it.

December 22, 2013

The first thing to keep in mind regarding the struggles in Ukraine is that these are people accustomed to a rough-and-tumble world.

For instance, in Kiev there is a memorial statue to Princess Olga, the first saintto be canonized in Eastern Europe. Olga came to power in 945 AD upon the murder of her husband, Igor of Kiev, by Drevlians (there’s a reason you haven’t heard of them—read on). If she did not remarry, the crown would pass to her son upon adulthood. The Drevlians petitioned Olga to marry their Prince Mal to establish peace. When she didn’t agree, they sent 20 emissaries to reason with her. Olga had them buried alive. She sent Prince Mal a message saying that she’d had a change of heart and would become his wife if he would come for her with the best men of his court to help convince her people. Mal came with a retinue of the most respected Drevlians. Olga offered them a bathhouse to clean up after their journey. When the men were inside, she had her guards seal the building and burn it to the ground. Since all of their leaders were dead, she invited the remaining Drevlians to a funeral feast. Once they were drunk, she had her army slaughter some 5,000 of them. In desperation, the survivors appealed for peace. Olga asked each family to pay tribute of two doves and two sparrows. Her men tied threads with burning sulfur to the legs of each bird and released them. The birds flew back to their nests in the eaves and rafters of Drevlian homes and burned the entire community. Finally, in her old age, she converted to Christianity and encouraged others to join her, hence the sainthood.

At least she didn’t tweet a selfie of her private parts. That would be a scandal.

Because of its key location, fertile soil, the navigable Dneiper River and an ice-free harbor, for the past 5,000 years every dominant group within marching distance has sought control over Ukraine. Vikings, Mongols, Lithuanians, Poles, and Turks each fought to have their turn. Remember the Crimean War? “The Charge of the Light Brigade?” That was in Ukraine. Cossacks? They’re also Ukrainians. In recent times, Hitler’s Germans overran the country, but the invaders with the most lasting influence have been the Russians.

A group later known as the Kievan Rus united the Slavic tribes from the Baltic Sea in the North to the Black Sea in the South. They made their capital in Kiev. As they expanded, they gave their name to Russia. Ukraine became the not-so-willing breadbasket of Tsarest Russia, and later, the Soviet Union. Sebastopol and Odessa were Russia’s only year-round, ice-free ports. While the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics has an inclusionary ring to it, the Kremlin put ethnic Russians in charge of all departments in the “Republics.” Ethnic Russians were poured into Ukraine to support ports and the industrial East.

However, Stalin was still suspicious of Ukrainian nationalism and systematically starved to death between 3 and 11 million people. Trust and family bonds were destroyed. Neighbor betrayed neighbor and the betrayers prospered. When the Germans invaded a decade later, many of these same officials pandered to them, only to trade masters again at war’s end. The good and the kind, the wise and the noble had been decimated.

The great value of religion to society is the concept of an omniscient god who can see what people do when they’re alone. Lenin replaced that god with the state and secret police. When communism fell, so did all restraints. Indeed, whenever western-style regulations and methods were proposed, they were rejected because they sounded too much like the communist yoke. Of course, organized crime and corrupt officials were in total agreement with the paranoid masses on this point.

There are still some decent people left, but they have trouble finding and trusting one another. And, they don’t get political backing. Ukrainian leaders only rise with the backing those who fleece the public.

Ordinary citizens are forbidden to convert Ukrainian hryvna into dollars or euros, and are limited in how much they can withdraw from their own bank accounts. Meanwhile, the largest banks have been looted by their presidents, who’ve fled the country with billions. The national bank is missing nearly half of its capital. The national airline has been driven into insolvency to the benefit of Aeroflot, the Russian carrier.

Meanwhile, Russia, which is also a kleptocracy, has allies in the half of Ukrainians who are ethnic Russians. Russian FSB (successor to KGB) and/or organized crime are the leading suspects in the poisoning Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko when he ran against the Kremlin’s preferred candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Both men were opposed by Yulya Tymoshenko, who became prime minister and made a secret deal with Moscow regarding a gas pipeline. However, Putin still preferred the more maleable, previously convicted thief, Yanukovych, so Tymoshenko wound up in prison and Yushchenko retired for health reasons.

The Orange Revolution never had a chance. Neither does the current unrest. Putin will continue to treat Ukraine like a Russian colony. The real problem is that in the west, we still believe the world is run by political beliefs, while amoral, pandemic corruption is threatening us all.

November 14, 2013

November 22, 1963 was a Friday. I was a high school junior sitting in my French class. The teacher, Mrs. Olson, was called from the classroom. This was unusual but not alarming. She returned in a few minutes, shortly before an announcement over the PA system told us President Kennedy was shot.

We took the news in silence. A few students in other classes cheered. This was Appalachian South Carolina and Kennedy was not a popular figure. The faculty lectured us that murder must never be celebrated. An attack on the President was an attack on the country, an attack on democracy, and by extension, an attack on all of us. --Well, maybe they didn’t use those exact words, but that was the gist of it.

Nobody talks about those negative feelings these days. John F. Kennedy has become a secular saint. The Kennedy’s were attractive, but “Camelot” was only skin deep, more aspirational than real.

My own first reaction was that “this” was not the way to do it. Like him or not--my father was an Eisenhower/Nixon Republican, and I had not yet rebelled--Kennedy had been elected, and the right thing was to campaign against a second term. Murder is a form of tyranny and not compatible with democracy.

Mrs. Olson switched on the ceiling-mounted television normally used for French lessons, and we watched the news--ignoring end-of-class bells--until we were sent home.

Then, my family and most of the rest of the country sat glued to our televisions for the next three days. We saw Lee Harvey Oswald gunned down as it happened.

Until that moment, I think most people believed the authorities had done their job and caught the right man. Jack Ruby led us all through the looking glass into a world of conspiracies.

PBS's NOVA has done a good job of looking at much of the forensic evidence [http://video.pbs.org/video/2365118537/]. However, there are gaps. For instance, NOVA says that of all the books written about the assassination, none addressed forensic ballistic evidence. Not true.

A scroll through the books on ebay shows at least two that assert expert examination of ballistic evidence. One of them claims five shots were fired. That seems too farfetched for me to read. I have read the other one: Mortal Error by Bonar Menninger. It is quite compelling, and brings up several issues that neither NOVA nor anybody else, to my knowledge, have addressed.

The book was based on research by a ballistics expert named Howard Donahue. He was hired by CBS shortly after the assassination to demonstrate whether Oswald could have fired 3 shots from the bolt-action rifle as quickly as the time frame required. Donahue re-created the shooting and did, indeed, fire three shots rapidly enough to prove it could be done. Afterwards, Donahue still had questions and set out on his own to find answers.

Since I gave my copy to a Greek millionaire almost 20 years ago (a story in itself), my memory may not be 100%, but I’ll try to be accurate.

First is the 3-bullet theory. Witnesses heard at least 3 shots. NOVA showed how the supersonic bullet from Oswald’s rifle made two sounds when fired: one by the bullet breaking the sound barrier, and one by the exploding powder. These blasts echoed off the surrounding buildings and made the sound more confusing. In the book depository, police found two empty shell casings on the floor and another still in the rifle. Three bangs plus three casings equals three shots by Oswald.

Donahue posits the first shot hit the pavement and disintegrated, sending a few fragments into the Presidential limo. Kennedy said he was shot. NOVA asserts the first shot missed. Donahue also credits Oswald with firing the shot that entered the President’s back and traveled through to strike Governor Connelly. NOVA demonstrates this very well. Donahue claims this was the actual kill shot. It severed Kennedy’s spine, causing his elbows to raise up. It also passed through his throat and destroyed his ability to speak. NOVA is more concerned with the path of the bullet and follows the standard theory that the head shot was the killer. There is no doubt that the third shot was also fired from the rear, and could not have come from the grassy knoll in front of the car.

Donahue maintained that the metal-jacketed bullet that went through both men without serious deformation would have similarly passed through the President’s skull without causing the massive damage that actually occurred. He did not account for the bullet’s highly destructive yaw or tumbling that NOVA documented. Donahue focused on multiple tiny balls of lead found within the skull and visible on the x-rays, which he maintained were caused by a soft lead bullet that melted from the friction of impact. If there were two types of bullets fired, then there were two guns. NOVA did not discuss bullet fragments within the skull, and this third bullet has never been found.

The NOVA experts showed that Oswald’s 6.5mm Carcano metal-jacketed bullet had a lead core, and as it deformed from striking bone could squeeze some lead out from the back end. But, would this be enough to match the lead in Donahue’s x-rays?

Oswald did not bother to eject the brass from his last shot, and left it in the rifle for the police. Donahue suggests that Oswald similarly left the final casing from his last target practice in the chamber as well, only ejecting it when he arrived at the book depository. In other words, Oswald only fired twice, but left three shell casings.

Who fired the third shot? Conspiracy theories fall apart when considering Oswald as a key player. The Soviets didn’t want him and neither did the Cubans. He was an erratic loner, and not to be trusted with an assignment that important. So, how would a conspiracy group know that he was going to shoot the President and plan to be there?

We go back to the third, disintegrated soft-lead bullet. According to Donahue, this was a common round used in the M-16/AR-15 rifle employed by the military and the Secret Service. In the convertible immediately behind the Presidential limo, there was one agent with such a rifle.

Apparently, when the first shot was fired, the agent in the middle of the rear seat stood up to look for the shooter. When the second shot was fired, the cars accelerated and the agent fell, discharging his weapon. The head shot was an accident.

Since there was no autopsy done in Dallas, and the Bethesda autopsy did not include forensic specialists, everyone assumed the head shot was the fatal one, and not the less dramatic spinal hit. The government dropped its cloak of secrecy and disinformation to avoid telling the world the President had been killed by his own Secret Service, albeit accidentally. That’s what Donahue believed.

Donahue died before he could publish his final conclusions. A reporter from the Baltimore Sun wrote Mortal Error from Donahue’s notes. Before accepting the manuscript for publication, the publisher reverified all of Donahue’s research. Still, whenever I heard or read mention of Mortal Error by other assassination explainers, it was dismissed without any discussion of the documented facts Donahue revealed. There’s the real conspiracy.

Remember when Lincoln was shot, the government rounded up and hanged everyone who’d as much as said a kind word to John Wilkes Booth. After Kennedy, however, the Warren Commission made a point of reinforcing the notion of a lone gunman. The Kennedy family did not push for a wider investigation.

Another author recorded a moment with President Johnson on the golf course when he waved for the Secret Service to move further away from him. He commented that he was worried they might shoot him.

September 23, 2013

Since the D.C. Navy Yard
shooting, there’s been a lot of talk about security clearances like the shooter and Edward Snowden had. Let me see if I can shed a little light
on the issue.

Clearances, i.e. Secret and
Top Secret, take about six months to obtain—under optimal circumstances. And, not all clearances are equal. Some federal agencies do not accept
clearances from other federal agencies.

Imagine you are an employer
and you need to hire a person with a clearance. Can you afford to wait six months or more to bring your
candidate on board? Probably
not—unless you’re the military--so you hire from the available pool of people
who already have clearances.
Meanwhile, the best match for the kind of work involved may not have a
clearance, but that's irrelevant.
The young person fresh out of the military with a DOD clearance may not
have the education or skills you need, but it's easier to train someone than
to wait indefinitely for a clearance.

As a veteran myself, I am not
arguing against hiring vets.
Military service is excellent training for many of the qualities every
employer wants. The problem is
with the clearance process.

I've been on the agency
side of requesting clearances, held a Top Secret clearance and performed background investigations. An investigation involves a number of
interviews and reports: making appointments,
driving to various locations, walking door-to-door, interviewing people, etc.. But, there are deadlines, and the whole
process typically takes less than two weeks, often only a few days.

What takes six months? The all-agency check. In addition to the background
investigation, requests are sent to all federal agencies for whatever may be in
their files regarding the subject.
Did you ever do a Google search for information about someone? Google, Bing, etc. search thousands, if
not millions, of sources and give you an answer within seconds. True, there are special sites that do
public records searches and you might allow another half an hour to input the
search criteria and pay their fee before getting a reply. The U.S. government is not that easy.
All information is agency-specific and proprietary. Agency programs are incompatible with each other more often
than not. Requests may arrive
digitally, and then have to be re-input by hand. As a result, the clearance process is only as fast as the
least automated, least efficient agency.

I have two commonsense
recommendations. First, make
clearances universal. Every agency
honors the process of every other agency.
Second, create a digital Rosetta Stone that allows instant agency-to-agency database communication (with safeguards to insure privacy). The way to accomplish both
tasks is to create a Department of Information Technology (DIT). The new department would take over IT
chores for all government.

By doing so, we could also
greatly reduce the number of expensive IT consultants and contractors. DIT staff would simply move seamlessly from
project to project. IT pros would
come to the government for job security, and the taxpayers would no longer have to pay triple to
employ a person (contractors usually charge the government 3-times what they
pay their on-site employees). DIT
could also have responsibility for all security clearances—with the possible
exception of their own—I’d give that job to DOJ or DHS to prevent conflicts of
interest.

So, why don’t we take that
step (or any steps) to improve security, save tax dollars, and screen out future disasters?